Are Indian umpires incompetent?

[mastimasti]

First there was the stumping on Sharma. There was nothing clearly behind the line yet the review stated Sharma gets to keep his wicket.

Then something absolutely criminal. Ali bowls a beautiful offy outside leg, Rahane dabs at the ball as it rips off the surface. The ball rises, hits the pad and then strikes the glove before the catch is taken.

The on field umpire is unmoved and England review, with Root clearly indicating he wants the catch to be looked at not the LBW. Not a problem as reviews are supposed to enquire on all possible dismissals so surely you would expect England to come out well in this review; instead they lose the review. How?

Well, only the LBW is reviewed and it is clearly not out. Root is visible annoyed and he calls to the on field umpire to check back upstairs, the umpire waves his hand and calls for game on. What?

Taken directly from the ICC regulations, appendix D.
"The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision making process.
In particular, in reviewing a dismissal, if the third umpire believes that the batsman may instead be Out by
any other mode of dismissal, he/she shall advise the on-field umpire accordingly."

The third umpire shall not withhold any factual information...

So what happened here? Its a surprise that this has not been big news as its one of the worst pieces of incompetence (at best) I've seen by umpires in recent times.

What do you all think about? Why were England not more vocal? Should these umpires be retrained?

 

[Titan24]

Interesting, I didnt watch but, would be great if we can have videos. Based upon what you have written it definitely looks like some ordinary umpiring was on display.

 

[Ab Fan]

Missed out Day 1 game but umpires were brilliant in first test, they were even spot on with the close decisions too.

 

[Varun]

One day we will learn to produce good umpires, just like we've not learnt to produce fast bowlers.

 

[dravidthewall]

One day we will learn to produce good umpires, just like we've not learnt to produce fast bowlers.

Onfeild umpire did better...it was third umpire who made mustake

 

[RickyG]

I haven't seen it so can't comment. It would be helpful if videos were posted to show evidence I suppose.

My only comment is that on-field umpires are allowed to make mistakes. If these mistakes are made by the 3rd umpire as per OP then that's indefensible. I wish there were consequences for umpires.

 

[RickyG]

One day we will learn to produce good umpires, just like we've not learnt to produce fast bowlers.

Why so defensive? If Indian umpires make mistakes call it out. Pakistanis called out Shozab Raza's mistake in the first T20 with stumping decision without getting defensive.

 

[gazza619]

There was a very good reason why neutral umpires were introduced in the game of cricket.

I think we may be confusing cheating with incompetency.

 

[moghul]

Did not watch 2nd test , but in 1st test Indian local umpires did a good job, compared to Pakistani local umpires other than Aleem Dar . Pakistani umpiring against SA, baring Aleem, has been poor, but not biased.

 

[Ab Fan]

I feel it is more of a brain-fade from third umpire rather than incompetency. He checked for LBW but forgot to check for gloves.

Being incompetent means not good enough, you can't expect the umpires to make such bizzare mistakes and not be good enough to check at that level, it was clearly a brainfade moment and it ultimately made them look quite silly and stupid.

As an example, when a batsman gets hit wicket or runs himself out in a bizzare manner, it is not incompetency but rather brain-fade moment.

Regarding Rohit, there wasn't any clear evidence that Rohit was out. Again, going with their discussion. So, I don't think there is a problem with that decision.

 

[MenInG]

England spinner Jack Leach likened controversial umpiring decisions to football's VAR debate after DRS denied him two wickets on the opening day of the second Test against India in Chennai.

Leach appeared to have centurion Rohit Sharma stumped by Ben Foakes - only for the batsman to be reprieved even though the replay showed his foot on the crease instead of behind it.

Soon afterwards, his appeal for a bat-pad catch against Ajinkya Rahane was turned down, with the third umpire failing to spot that the ball had brushed the glove before settling into the hands of fielder Ollie Pope.

England initially lost a review for the latter decision - although that was later reinstated - and the damage was limited by the departures of both India batsmen soon afterwards, to Leach and fellow spinner Moeen Ali respectively.

"It was a bit like VAR today - still controversial even though you've got the technology!" said Leach.

"Hopefully these things are swings and roundabouts and we'll get a little bit of luck along the way. Obviously it's a mistake and these things happen.

"Ben did say it [the stumping] was definitely out and then when we saw it we were hoping. It was touch and go, that one and it didn't go our way, but the other one would have been nice.

"We were trying to get them to roll it through because we felt it [the glove] had come afterwards.They were checking it, then the lbw footage came up and we said 'no no, no'.

"At the time I was a little bit angry - I'd rather have three than two, I guess! But I think getting a wicket the next over made it easier - it's not cost us and we got our review back."

England had been under the cosh at the start of the final session as Rohit and Rahane put together a fourth-wicket stand of 162 after the home side had won the toss.

But their wickets slowed India's progress, although Rishabh Pant - who took Leach apart during the first Test - remained unbeaten on 33 at stumps, with his side well-placed on 300-6.

"As you saw with Rohit and Rahane, once you get a partnership going on that older ball, it can get a little bit easier, so we've certainly got to believe we can do the same when we come to bat," Leach added.

"We've been able to adapt quite well to spinning surfaces in the last few games, even in Sri Lanka, and our full belief is we can do that here as well.

"I felt I bowled well today - this is definitely the best rhythm I've had since we started. It's all based around being patient, letting the pitch do what it was doing and hoping you make some inroads that way."

SKY

 

[Varun]

Why so defensive? If Indian umpires make mistakes call it out. Pakistanis called out Shozab Raza's mistake in the first T20 with stumping decision without getting defensive.

What's defensive about my response?

When I say "One day we will learn to produce good umpires", am I not alluding that the current lot are rubbish?

 

[DeadBall]

What's defensive about my response?

When I say "One day we will learn to produce good umpires", am I not alluding that the current lot are rubbish?

Your second part says "just like we've not learnt to produce fast bowlers" which makes the comment appear sarcastic.

 

[Chrish]

Incompetency more than anything. That particular umpire should be fired from the series.

 

[Golden arm]

Incompetency more than anything. That particular umpire should be fired from the series.

Incompetence is one element. But blatant bias akin to australian umpires perhaps reaction to the historical decisions in australia is the other reason.
I remember Bob woolmer commenting in one of the australian series about bias: 22 to 9 borderline decisions going in favour of australia
Imagine Australians enjoying 3x more favouritism.

 

[Zaz]

I dont think they are incompetent

They r just clearly biased Theres no other explanation for these incidents

 

[Chrish]

Not sure about bias/ integrity. I have seen plenty of third umpire blunders over the years. As I said, just let that person go.

 

[King-Misbah]

May be incompetence but more bias. The rohit sharma stumping was out! And then the Rehana decision was shocking!

 

[pillionrider]

Ali bowls a beautiful offy outside leg, Rahane dabs at the ball as it rips off the surface. The ball rises, hits the pad and then strikes the glove before the catch is taken.

Such a beautiful description for a rubbish ball from brother Moeen

Indian umpiring has been surprisingly fantastic so far.

Third umpire didn't have his lunch maybe. Had a terrible day.

 

[pillionrider]

Such a beautiful description for a rubbish ball from brother Moeen

Indian umpiring has been surprisingly fantastic so far.

Third umpire didn't have his lunch maybe. Had a terrible day.

Anyway, both decisions were reversed by karma and the review also was returned to England (the Rahane one). I don't understand this bit though. It was morally the right thing to do - to return the lost review. But is there a law that allowed them to do so? Technically the review was lost.

Anyway it was good, because Mark Butcher had started weeping and even referred to himself as a whinging pom after the return

 

[RickyG]

What's defensive about my response?

When I say "One day we will learn to produce good umpires", am I not alluding that the current lot are rubbish?

As DeadBall pointed out, it's very obviously a sarcastic response.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

These Indian umpires will raise the finger to almost any lbw appeal made by the fellow Indian players so that the umpire’s call always go to India.

Need neutral umpires

 

[Last Monetarist]

This is the problem with umpire's call, it's been blatantly obvious since the inception of DRS. They need to change the protocols so that the benefit of the doubt with ball-tracking goes to the batsman.

 

[RickyG]

This is the problem with umpire's call, it's been blatantly obvious since the inception of DRS. They need to change the protocols so that the benefit of the doubt with ball-tracking goes to the batsman.

I agree the margin of umpire's call needs to be eliminated or reduced (10% of the ball or something). But I completely disagree with the second statement. You want to reduce the wicket by a whole stump basically. If a ball hits/shaves a stump it dislodges the bail more often than not. The bowler shouldn't be penalized after rapping a batsman on the pads.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Both Indian and Australian umpires are equally incompetent but atleast aussie umpires are cunning.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I agree the margin of umpire's call needs to be eliminated or reduced (10% of the ball or something). But I completely disagree with the second statement. You want to reduce the wicket by a whole stump basically. If a ball hits/shaves a stump it dislodges the bail more often than not. The bowler shouldn't be penalized after rapping a batsman on the pads.

The problem is with ball-tracking, it's a predictive path which is highly uncertain given the quick turnaround in which the path must be prepared by the techies. There are lots of variables that are not consistent given that they are dependent on the host broadcasters' camera work.

I am not advocating limiting lbws by the size of a whole stump, but only disregarding perhaps 10% of the outer stumps and arguably 5% off the top of the bails.

 

[Baigel]

The Rory Burns dismissal was evidently biased. Look at the umpires eyes, he wasn't interested then he looked at Ishant and then raised his finger.

You need to have neutral umpires.

 

[mastimasti]

And so it begins again.....I have a day off, tune into the test match and I see the batsman not offer a stroke. England review, not knowing that the umpire believes the batsman HAS offered a stroke. Even the usually biased Indian commentators are in shock. Sunny's comments "What little I know of batting....that was not a shot".

It is tough enough to play in India against such a good side, to win a test match is huge, to get into a favourable position in a second test or to even try, while the umpires are unable or unwilling to do their jobs is impossible.

A dark stain on what was turning into a very good series.

 

[Romali_rotti]

And so it begins again.....I have a day off, tune into the test match and I see the batsman not offer a stroke. England review, not knowing that the umpire believes the batsman HAS offered a stroke. Even the usually biased Indian commentators are in shock. Sunny's comments "What little I know of batting....that was not a shot".

It is tough enough to play in India against such a good side, to win a test match is huge, to get into a favourable position in a second test or to even try, while the umpires are unable or unwilling to do their jobs is impossible.

A dark stain on what was turning into a very good series.

LOL what ? Timmy Paine did the exact same review on the tour just finished against the Indians for not offering a shot and review came in the batsmens favor. Those terrible Aussie Home umpiresss

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Embarrassing really.

This level of incompetence is JUST not on.

We see this nonsense in IPL all the time.

3rd umpiring has been pathetic.

 

[Extra_Cover]

This is incompetence more than bias. Not sure if everyone agrees on here but the umpires have kind of sheepish look, it seems they can be intimidated into decision making.

The "no shot" decision was a joke. What I don't understand is why cannot 3rd umpire reverse the onfield howler of declaring it a "no shot"? Surely a referral is a system to reverse on field howlers and this was one. But alas 3rd umpire is equally incompetent.

 

[Zaz]

Its hard enough to beat india at home with their doctored pitches n everything without indian umpires joining in against the away team too

 

[Romali_rotti]

When was the last time a batsmen was given a NOT OUT by onfield umpire and given OUT after referral, for NO SHOT offered ? I am genuinely curious to know.

 

[Varun]

I really doubt they are deliberately cheating to make us win. They don't need to.

Incompetence is the correct word here.

 

[happydavy]

Embarassing to say the least. It surprises me how come and why after playing such brave hard cricket in Australia less than a month back, we have gone back to those doctored pitches which takes away the thrill from the game. Perhaps to make Kohli look great? Third umpire is more than just being incompetent, he's disgusting.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Apart from power, arrogance and threats can BCCI money buy professionalism, experience and perfection? Indian commentators and umpires are below average these days as well. Need to improve viewers experience as well and should not give a chance to opposition fans to raise fingers on our umpire's intention. Most of them look like emotional fools who can come under crowd pressure or Kohli's any time and give wrong decisions.

 

[Golden arm]

Incompetency more than anything. That particular umpire should be fired from the series.

I would also blame desi mindset of rushing through things without following the whole process with a pinch of silly confidence ranging to arrogance.
Had it been some one else, he would have made sure that process was followed thoroughly. Desi Juggars are one of the reason for these sorts of decisions. We see shortcuts in every sphere of life and some times really proud of these juggars / shortcuts.

 

[Golden arm]

Embarassing to say the least. It surprises me how come and why after playing such brave hard cricket in Australia less than a month back, we have gone back to those doctored pitches which takes away the thrill from the game. Perhaps to make Kohli look great? Third umpire is more than just being incompetent, he's disgusting.

Bouncy pitches in australia
Seam in UK
Swing in NZ
Spin in subcontinent

That's the beauty. As long as one team is able to score decent I think it's a fair competition. The opponents are simply not equipped to play in foreign conditions. Home team advantage is the beauty of cricket which makes watching cricket interesting and should always be there.

 

[adzzy786]

Anil is the worst umpire I have ever seen. He was poor in the first game and his biased umpiring is clear to see for everyone. If not go watch his decisions again and you’ll see

 

[Golden arm]

Anil is the worst umpire I have ever seen. He was poor in the first game and his biased umpiring is clear to see for everyone. If not go watch his decisions again and you’ll see

He is a very patriotic indian. He was really hurt after defeat in the first test. Please place yourself in his shoes

 

[Last Monetarist]

When was the last time a batsmen was given a NOT OUT by onfield umpire and given OUT after referral, for NO SHOT offered ? I am genuinely curious to know.

The third umpire can't make a decision on whether a shot was offered or not under the current DRS protocols. If the standing umpire deems that a shot is played, the third umpire is not allowed to deliberate over that decision. The problem today was that Root got overexcited and went for the review without asking the umpire whether he thought a shot was played.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The third umpire can't make a decision on whether a shot was offered or not under the current DRS protocols. If the standing umpire deems that a shot is played, the third umpire is not allowed to deliberate over that decision. The problem today was that Root got overexcited and went for the review without asking the umpire whether he thought a shot was played.

Thanks...

 

[Golden arm]

Thanks...

So root needs to be doing bit of umpiring as well. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[gibsyhesperis]

Let’s hope it is incompetence, because the alternative is bias (aka cheating).
This match is perfectly making the case for neutral umpires — the ICC could have implemented that within COVID protocols.
Very disappointing to see.

 

[Golden arm]

"India in driver's seat because of their method, skill and discipline
Their spinners bowled fewer poor deliveries and drew more forward-defensives from the England batsmen"
Sidharth Monga

He didn't mention the 4th dimension at home fort. The aspect of non neutral umpiring

 

[Golden arm]

Anil is the worst umpire I have ever seen. He was poor in the first game and his biased umpiring is clear to see for everyone. If not go watch his decisions again and you’ll see

Anil will beat Shakoor Rana any day

 

[gazza619]

Its hard enough to beat india at home with their doctored pitches n everything without indian umpires joining in against the away team too

Exactly. I think people have forgotten the ills of home umpiring. The only difference with technology now is that they can only half cheat. Home umpires have always been dreadful.

 

[HitWicket]

The problem today was that Root got overexcited and went for the review without asking the umpire whether he thought a shot was played.

Root isn't allowed to ask the umpire that. He made the assumption that any sane person would that Rohit wasn't playing a shot.

 

[happydavy]

Bouncy pitches in australia
Seam in UK
Swing in NZ
Spin in subcontinent

That's the beauty. As long as one team is able to score decent I think it's a fair competition. The opponents are simply not equipped to play in foreign conditions. Home team advantage is the beauty of cricket which makes watching cricket interesting and should always be there.

The problem is no one abuses the home turf advantage as India does. Problem is not spin, problem is how they get the pitch doctored depending upon the circumstances. Sydney is always spin friendly, Perth or Headingley or Durban are always fast bowlers friendly, there is consistency to their characters. In India, depending upon whether India is 1-0 up or trailing 0-1 determines how the pitch will play and there's nothing beautiful about it.

 

[Saurav]

Why aren't there neutral umpires?

Even Aus-Ind had home umpires

 

[Last Monetarist]

Root isn't allowed to ask the umpire that. He made the assumption that any sane person would that Rohit wasn't playing a shot.

Sure, that is a fair assumption. However, under Rule 3.3.2.4 of the playing conditions (https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2020/12/07/ec1dc834-89bf-44f0-8666-269d9b39d405/ICC-World-Test-Championship-Playing-Conditions-Dec-2020.pdf), the third umpire cannot adjudicate on whether a shot was played. Captains are not prohibited to get it clarified from the umpire before reviewing the appeal as they lose a review otherwise. It's a loophole in the laws.

 

[Saj]

Why aren't there neutral umpires?

Even Aus-Ind had home umpires

Covid-19 restrictions.

The iCC has stated that home umpires should officiate during these times for international series.

 

[HitWicket]

Sure, that is a fair assumption. However, under Rule 3.3.2.4 of the playing conditions (https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2020/12/07/ec1dc834-89bf-44f0-8666-269d9b39d405/ICC-World-Test-Championship-Playing-Conditions-Dec-2020.pdf), the third umpire cannot adjudicate on whether a shot was played. Captains are not prohibited to get it clarified from the umpire before reviewing the appeal as they lose a review otherwise. It's a loophole in the laws.

It's not a loophole, 3.2.3 explicitly prohibits it and nothing in 3.3.2.4 indicates that this type of dismissal is any exception.

 

[Baigel]

We criticize Indian umpires, but apart from Aleem Dar, no Pakistani umpire seems good enough either.

 

[Last Monetarist]

It's not a loophole, 3.2.3 explicitly prohibits it and nothing in 3.3.2.4 indicates that this type of dismissal is any exception.

Fair enough on rule 3.2.3.

3.3.2.4 indicates that the standing umpire has to make the assessment that a shot was played or not. Under rule 3.4 (review of lbws) the third umpire is not tasked to check whether a shot was played so it's outside his remit.

It is a definite loophole, unless you can specifically point me towards any occasion where the third umpire was asked to review whether a shot was offered or not.

 

[Saurav]

Covid-19 restrictions.

The iCC has stated that home umpires should officiate during these times for international series.

Weird.

If players can quarantine,surely umps can too

 

[Devadwal]

Third umpire particular is very poor . Neutral umpires is right idea

 

[HitWicket]

Fair enough on rule 3.2.3.

3.3.2.4 indicates that the standing umpire has to make the assessment that a shot was played or not. Under rule 3.4 (review of lbws) the third umpire is not tasked to check whether a shot was played so it's outside his remit.

It is a definite loophole, unless you can specifically point me towards any occasion where the third umpire was asked to review whether a shot was offered or not.

You're correct that the decision as to whether a shot was played is the on field umpires, that doesn't mean Root was able to ask him what his decision was in that regard though.

 

[adzzy786]

Anil will beat Shakoor Rana any day

This is a bit like having two piles of rubbish and arguing which one is better than the other. Let’s not waste each other’s time . They both are very poor

 

[Last Monetarist]

You're correct that the decision as to whether a shot was played is the on field umpires, that doesn't mean Root was able to ask him what his decision was in that regard though.

Yes, I got that wrong.

 

[mastimasti]

Let us not steer this towards "well Indian umpires bad, but everyone else bad too"....as Indians we must be honest and as cricket fans we must want the highest quality cricket available. In this entire test match the Indian umpires look like they have a shotgun to their heads. Anytime Root wants to question, they look to the ground....any time an Indian bowler and team mates appeal, the umpires eyes widen and you can see they look to be in a tricky situation. What is going on behind the scenes, no one will ever know.

What has happened on the pitch and how a third umpire misses the obvious, i.e. a ball hitting the gloves is difficult to understand. Not only that, the third umpire seems completely unaware of the rules he should have been taken through in training, in this case to check for available dismissals and to update the on field umpire as required. This is a basic premise for third umpires which has been in use since the introduction of DRS....if Indian umpires are unaware of this, they need to be removed from the professional circuit and retrained.

That is the best case scenario....because the other option is that there is something else going on. I have yet to remember, in the last 5 or 6 years, a third umpire not knowing the specifications of his job. Whether that is a Pakistani umpire, an Australian or anyone else some defensive fans want to bring up here.

 

[Golden arm]

We criticize Indian umpires, but apart from Aleem Dar, no Pakistani umpire seems good enough either.

Correct
Even he is receding and age factor catching up fast. Simon Taufel was the last best umpire who maintained highest standards till last working day.

 

[RickyG]

The problem is with ball-tracking, it's a predictive path which is highly uncertain given the quick turnaround in which the path must be prepared by the techies. There are lots of variables that are not consistent given that they are dependent on the host broadcasters' camera work.

I am not advocating limiting lbws by the size of a whole stump, but only disregarding perhaps 10% of the outer stumps and arguably 5% off the top of the bails.

But that problem works both ways. The predictive path could show it missing when it could've been hitting. The rule as it stands already favors the batsman in any case (if they were initially given not out). There is only an umpires call on the ball clipping the stump. There is no umpires call on the ball barely missing the stump.

My concern is not with hawkeye or the ball tracking. I trust the technology and you have to take it for what it is because it's equal for everyone. Even the umpire is actually making a prediction on what the ball would've done. No one knows what it would've actually done with complete certainty. And in that case, I would trust technology over a human.

My concern is with the level of subjectivity with the current rules. The margin of error needs to be reduced as much as possible. If in a world cup final, on a similar delivery Babar Azam is given not out and Kohli is given out and in both situations the ball is clipping the stump then one team clearly benefits while the other might feel hard done by. It's this subjectivity that I am not a fan of. So either remove the margin of error or reduce it but without hampering the bowler.

 

[RickyG]

I think people should be mindful and careful of using the word bias. It's fair to criticize Indian umpires or any umpires because of incompetence. They deserve the criticism. Especially if they've missed a clear gloving of the ball. But we shouldn't resort to accusing them of bias. In 2021, I think these umpires have quite a bit at stake because every bad decision gets scrutinized and puts pressure on them. I doubt they would be out there trying to sabotage their own careers.

It's a simple case of the best umpires should be umpiring. Regardless of where they are from. That's what I've always believed. Unfortunately, Covid does not allow that.

 

[mastimasti]

I think people should be mindful and careful of using the word bias. It's fair to criticize Indian umpires or any umpires because of incompetence. They deserve the criticism. Especially if they've missed a clear gloving of the ball. But we shouldn't resort to accusing them of bias. In 2021, I think these umpires have quite a bit at stake because every bad decision gets scrutinized and puts pressure on them. I doubt they would be out there trying to sabotage their own careers.

It's a simple case of the best umpires should be umpiring. Regardless of where they are from. That's what I've always believed. Unfortunately, Covid does not allow that.

If you read the posts, most have been very careful to use the word "incompetent" and not "bias" however, with such repeated occurrences of blatantly bad decisions, the word bias will have to be used. It was bad enough that the on field umpire missed the obvious gloving, it was very suspicious that the third umpire did not review the camera footage using modern day slow-motion and high quality resolution....on top of all that, both umpires failed to know the basic rules in the ICC regulations on DRS, which I managed to pull up in less than a minute and is available in my first post.

The fact that this should be repeated a day later with a decision so bad that the Indian commentators who never speak out against anything India cricket, spoke out about it.

These are serious issues and need to be asked and if it was not for the Covid situation and every team trying to play nice and not cause controversies, the ECB would have been raising it has an issue where the umpires could be in serious trouble.

 

[Last Monetarist]

But that problem works both ways. The predictive path could show it missing when it could've been hitting. The rule as it stands already favors the batsman in any case (if they were initially given not out). There is only an umpires call on the ball clipping the stump. There is no umpires call on the ball barely missing the stump.

My concern is not with hawkeye or the ball tracking. I trust the technology and you have to take it for what it is because it's equal for everyone. Even the umpire is actually making a prediction on what the ball would've done. No one knows what it would've actually done with complete certainty. And in that case, I would trust technology over a human.

My concern is with the level of subjectivity with the current rules. The margin of error needs to be reduced as much as possible. If in a world cup final, on a similar delivery Babar Azam is given not out and Kohli is given out and in both situations the ball is clipping the stump then one team clearly benefits while the other might feel hard done by. It's this subjectivity that I am not a fan of. So either remove the margin of error or reduce it but without hampering the bowler.

The issue is that the technology isn't equal for anyone, as the judgment on the exact point of impact is subjective. Camera angles have a material impact on that assessment. The only way that subjectivity can be minimized is if the time allowed to create the ball-tracking path is more than a couple of minutes. Unfortunately that is completely impractical.

I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman on every occasion when the ball is clipping the outside half of the stumps (the margin of error needs to be minimized) rather than the umpire, as that rules out accusations of bias or incompetence. I am comfortable with batsmen having that benefit as that is the only way the rules can be interpreted equally for both sides, and it has always been ingrained in the game that the lbw law should be slightly in favour of the batsman.

 

[Romali_rotti]

My god that was PLUMB LBW of root how was that not given ??? Indian umpires are pathetic

 

[mastimasti]

My god that was PLUMB LBW of root how was that not given ??? Indian umpires are pathetic

The onfield umpire clearly was worried about the bat and pad being so close. That benefit should go to the batsman.

In comes the technology...the problem here is ball tracking believes it was not in the line of off stump. I would rather go with technology here.

But the umpiring has been quite up and down and in all honesty, England were due to one here. Problem is, damage is done and England are likely to lose by a large margin.

Regardless, the on field umpires here and the third umpire need to be removed from this series. If we do not have professional umpires then import them in. Surely they can stay in a bubble same as players.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The onfield umpire clearly was worried about the bat and pad being so close. That benefit should go to the batsman.

In comes the technology...the problem here is ball tracking believes it was not in the line of off stump. I would rather go with technology here.

But the umpiring has been quite up and down and in all honesty, England were due to one here. Problem is, damage is done and England are likely to lose by a large margin.

Regardless, the on field umpires here and the third umpire need to be removed from this series. If we do not have professional umpires then import them in. Surely they can stay in a bubble same as players.

Steve Smith was recently given out LBW after being reversed by the 3rd umpire in the series just finished. Initially Paul Wilson ruled not out, Rahane reviewed and it showed the ball pitching outside the line but hitting much below the stumps instead of hitting the very top of the stump and was given OUT.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I dont think they are incompetent

They r just clearly biased Theres no other explanation for these incidents

THIS, clearly biased against the Indians, Joe Root was PLUMB...

 

[Golden arm]

I think people should be mindful and careful of using the word bias. It's fair to criticize Indian umpires or any umpires because of incompetence. They deserve the criticism. Especially if they've missed a clear gloving of the ball. But we shouldn't resort to accusing them of bias. In 2021, I think these umpires have quite a bit at stake because every bad decision gets scrutinized and puts pressure on them. I doubt they would be out there trying to sabotage their own careers.

It's a simple case of the best umpires should be umpiring. Regardless of where they are from. That's what I've always believed. Unfortunately, Covid does not allow that.

Human Psychology experts have enough evidence for the human bias, so it is some thing we should accept and come to terms with it rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

even ICC recognises that, that's why 3 referrals rather than usual 2 referrals.

 

[UzmanBeast]

The Third Umpires need to be checked. Subcontinent third umpires are borderline incapable of communicating clearly what they want to see to make a judgement.

That Raza guy who gave Talat out stumped was just incompetent. He also made another shocker soon after I assume.

It's mostly an issue with communication, they need to be trained better.

 

[Extra_Cover]

The onfield umpire clearly was worried about the bat and pad being so close. That benefit should go to the batsman.

In comes the technology...the problem here is ball tracking believes it was not in the line of off stump. I would rather go with technology here.

But the umpiring has been quite up and down and in all honesty, England were due to one here. Problem is, damage is done and England are likely to lose by a large margin.

Regardless, the on field umpires here and the third umpire need to be removed from this series. If we do not have professional umpires then import them in. Surely they can stay in a bubble same as players.

That was a very poor call from the on-field umpire. This was sure shot out, even if the umpire felt Root hit it then he was out caught keeper and if he didn't hit it then out via lbw. Overall, this epitomizes the poor standard of umpiring we have seen recently.

Funny with all the technology available the howlers still can't be overruled and this was a howler.

 

[mastimasti]

That was a very poor call from the on-field umpire. This was sure shot out, even if the umpire felt Root hit it then he was out caught keeper and if he didn't hit it then out via lbw. Overall, this epitomizes the poor standard of umpiring we have seen recently.

Funny with all the technology available the howlers still can't be overruled and this was a howler.

The question is, why does the largest and richest cricket board in the world not have competent umpires? I am not even asking for ground breaking world class umpires but simply umpires who know the basic rules of their job?

 

[MenInG]

England captain Joe Root, veteran seamers James Anderson and Stuart Broad were left fuming after the third umpire ruled a close caught behind appeal in favour of India opener Shubman Gill which resulted in the senior England cricketers getting involved in an animated chat with the on-field umpire Anil Chaudhary during the third Test in Ahmedabad.

It all transpired in the second over India’s first innings in the day-night pink ball Test when Stuart Broad found the outside edge of Shubman Gill’s bat. Ben Stokes, who was standing at second slip, claimed the catch as England players started to celebrate.

The on-field umpires got together and decided to send it upstairs with the soft signal – ‘out’, meaning that the third umpire would require conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.

As it turned out, the third umpire made a quick decision just after looking at one angle and decided that Stokes did not have anything beneath the ball.

Gill was adjudged not out which left Stokes bemused. The England all-rounder also started shaking his head with a smirk on his face.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...in-shubman-gill-s-favour-101614174288325.html

 

[mastimasti]

England captain Joe Root, veteran seamers James Anderson and Stuart Broad were left fuming after the third umpire ruled a close caught behind appeal in favour of India opener Shubman Gill which resulted in the senior England cricketers getting involved in an animated chat with the on-field umpire Anil Chaudhary during the third Test in Ahmedabad.

It all transpired in the second over India’s first innings in the day-night pink ball Test when Stuart Broad found the outside edge of Shubman Gill’s bat. Ben Stokes, who was standing at second slip, claimed the catch as England players started to celebrate.

The on-field umpires got together and decided to send it upstairs with the soft signal – ‘out’, meaning that the third umpire would require conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.

As it turned out, the third umpire made a quick decision just after looking at one angle and decided that Stokes did not have anything beneath the ball.

Gill was adjudged not out which left Stokes bemused. The England all-rounder also started shaking his head with a smirk on his face.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...in-shubman-gill-s-favour-101614174288325.html

Yet more terrible umpiring, maybe it is a lack of professionalism in the ranks among the BCCI umpiring panel?

In this case, I think the on field umpire was within his rights to give that out and the third umpire within his to reverse the decision...the problem is he could have used different angle, provided close ups and taken more time on a clearly tight call. He was all too happy to reverse the decision almost immediately and that obviously leads to frustration.

 

[Thephenom]

England, Australia, India never wanted neutral umpires in the first place, but it’s pure bias on the Indian umpires part they’ve always been homers!

 

[Space Cat]

They cant umpire grade cricket fairly so i can see why not many make it to the highest level.

 

[mastimasti]

Well what about now? The test series is over and there will be a lot of analysis, poor team selection by England, uneven performances by Indian batsmen, poor pitches....and the umpiring? SHould there now be a panel of neutral umpires for India even during covid?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Very few decisions overturned. Although India suffered umpires call more.